Warrush: WOW, I found this and not a Master.(No Offence) I think in some of these positions, the better the player the worst off. Patzers always think obvious, while masters think deeply and sometimes miss the obvious. Any views on this?

YouRang: <LIFE Master AJ: And as you can see, after three years, I finally figured out how to make a diagram ... it only took a couple of years.> Actually, the ability the post FEN diagrams has only been available for less than a year (I think Sept/Oct of 2005).

belka: <WOW, I found this and not a Master.(No Offence) I think in some of these positions, the better the player the worst off. Patzers always think obvious, while masters think deeply and sometimes miss the obvious. Any views on this?>

Congrats on finding the solution, but I don't think "obvious" is what I'd use to describe any part of this answer. :)

I actually find that Rc2, deflecting the queen so that Black can attack h2 using the Be5 superficially more promising. As soon as I noticed Qh4 left the Bishop undefended, I was looking to deflect the queen. I find that the Bishop on e5 is more obviously an attacking piece than the Rook on c8 -- even though because of the back rank, it's actually the opposite.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that a weaker player might not be able to deal with and work out continuations to the defensive ideas of h3, Qc8+, and even Rxf7+. He might give up without working out a win after Rc2.

This might be true, but I don't know. It's more complicated by the fact that in this Rc2 line, despite Qc8+ as an defensive resource, Black still can get through. And if you can calculate that, then it's a tempting line.

I SAW the possibility of ...Qh4, but dismissed it immediately, as soon as I also saw QxB/e5.

If had looked one move deeper, I might have found the solution ... but it was far from obvious. (I think many posters here confuse their machine's problem solving ability with their own.) Certainly it would be interesting to test you - under rigorously controlled conditions - to see how many difficult puzzles you could solve on your own. (I have a test of 50 problems to do exactly that.) One young man - about 25 - rated himself at 2000 ... or better. But after missing the first 10 problems in a row, I informed him that below 1100 was a much more realistic assessment of his chess strength. (The problems get progressively harder.)

I also got caught up in ...Rc2. The analysis of that took at least 5-10 minutes, but I may have been there alot longer. I glanced at the clock, (when I started); but lost track of things as I worked out the analysis.

IF I could not have found the solution, then I may have been forced to go back and look again. But once I found ...Rc2 and I was relatively sure that it was winning, there was no need to go back, as I thought that I had correctly worked out the solution.

I also work ONLY from the diagram on the screen. I DON'T set up a chess board and pieces ... as so many of you have told me that you do. (This is good discipline, and will serve you well of you ever play in a tournament.)

While perhaps not a "forgotten player," about three years ago, I was at a youth tournament in New Orleans with one of my students. A group of younger players and I started talking. One player asked about "favorite players," and I explained to them that many of the players that I admired when I was a youth were no longer in the top 100. When asked to give a few examples, Ljubojevic was one of the players that I mentioned, even a parent there (who worked as a chess coach) did not know who Ljubojevic was.

Halldor: Yes, Ljubo is memorable, inventive and lively player. I remember him at the World Cup tournament in Reykjavik 1991. He usually got into severe timetrouble, grabbing his hair or gnawing his nails, swinging his hands over the board up and down whithout touching the pieces, hesitating, either staring at the position or at the ticking clock... Of course he then got all the attention of the audience!

blitzkriege: Before alleging that other posters are using computers, one should think twice. It is very much possible that someone hits upon the solution of one puzzle very quickly, while labouring over other comparatively simpler ones. When one has to check with Fritz that after 26... Rc2, 27. Qxc2 is the ONLY move keeping in mind that the other candidate move leaves mate in 3, it is best to not comment on others' abilities.

I said it once, and I will say it again. A lot of the kibitzers here are confusing their computer's abilities with those of their own.

I have lost track of the number of times people have said, "Oh. I solved that in about 5-10 seconds." (Or even claimed that they did it instantly.)

The most recent example was Ermenkov-Kovacevic. Several posters claimed the "solution was easy" and that they got it right away. It turned out that the line actually played was nowhere near best, and and the analysis of the key positions continues to amaze this kibitzer, as well as <RandomVisitor> and <patzer2>.

If you want, e-mail me. I will give you a list of about ten pages. Full of tough problems, ones I usually missed. And full of guys who claimed that they got the solution right away. And in about half of these, computer analysis clearly reveals that the line actually played in the game was nowhere near the best ...

Albertan: Ljubojevic was severely criticized by Kasparov in a video I saw online. Kasparov said that Ljubojevic could have been a much stronger player if Ljubojevic had taken time to study his own games in detail and put the analysis in a book. Kasparov is of the opinion that the best way to improve your understanding and knowledge of chess, is to do a very detailed study of the games you have played in your life.

Albertan: At the time of this game the move 13...c4 was a theoretical novelty. Before this game the only moves which had been played on move 13 for black were 13...Qc7 and 13...h5.

According to Deep Rybka 3, Larsen could have made Ljubojevic's game much more difficult if he had played 17.Nd6 instead of 17.Nxe5. For example 17.Nd6
17... Rf8 18. Ncxb5 Bb7 19. Nxb7 Rxb7 20. d6 exf4 21. Bxf4 Qb6 and Deep Rybka 3 evaluates that Ljubojevic has insufficient compensation for the pawn.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.